Sixth time's a charm for River's Edge

By CRAIG NORTHRUP

Staff Writer

After five previous failed attempts in front of the city of Coeur d’Alene, developers at the (nearly) 11th hour pushed through their request to the Planning Commission for a Planned Unit Development and a corresponding plat known as River’s Edge.

After a lengthy, at times argumentative hearing in the city’s public library Tuesday night, the six-member panel voted 5-1 to approve — with a few adjustments to the applicant’s proposal — the PUD and plat.

“I’m relieved,” developer Lanzce Douglass said minutes after the vote, nearly three hours after the public hearing began. “Relieved is a good word for it.”

Different iterations of River’s Edge found their way in front of either the Planning Commission or City Council, ranging from high rise proposals to a 680-unit high density apartment complex. Tuesday’s proposal received approval after project planners scaled down to 28 waterfront homes along the Spokane River and 250 single-family dwellings, all due west of the Atlas Mill project.

Because one element of the PUD requires public waterfront access in the development, and because the proposal contained no language or blueprint for public parking, the proposal and eventual debate raised a perplexing issue for city leaders and developers planning future projects along the water: What constitutes public access to the waterfront?

The closest place I have to park is where?

“You have a statement in your narrative that says those areas down there, those public areas,” Committeeman John Ingalls said to Douglass after the initial presentation. “Quote: ‘This area serves a diverse population by providing a variety of spaces for recreation accessabiltiy by people of different ages and abilities’ … It’s a nice statement of usability and accessability, but I don’t know if it really holds up, because the closest place I have to park is where?”

Douglass’s answer was straightforward. “Nowhere are we required to have vehiclular access to the public access points to the water,” he pointed out. “You won’t find that in the code. You won’t find that in the annexation agreement. We have to have public access, and we’re providing access to the water through the gates for bicycles, walkers, scooters, however else you want to do it. It’s not a blanket statement where we have to accomodate every single person, no matter what they could ever imagine bringing down there.”

When Ingalls confronted Douglass with the question where the public would park to access the water within the development, Douglass referenced the aerial map of River’s Edge and threw the responsibility back to the city.

“You own all this property through here … You have the ability, with the property that you own as the city of Coeur d’Alene, to provide parking in this railroad right-of-way within 30 or 40 [feet] of those access points.

Ingalls followed by asking if Douglass envisioned the city installing parking lots. Douglass remained unfazed.

“That’s a good question what it’s going to be used for,” he said. “I don’t know. It’s not my property. It’s up to all of you as the owners of it to decide what it’s going to be used for.”

Tom Messina, chairman of the Planning Commission, interjected a complication that could open up future pitfalls for planners.

“Given the word ‘accessibility’ to public space,” Messina said, “and I understand what John is saying about how we make that finding, if parking isn’t part of that accessibility, though, code-wise says it doesn’t have to be. I’m not disagreeing or agreeing with John’s statement. It’s still accessibility.”

The annexation agreement from 2013 only requires public access without requiring any parking spaces.

Douglass, presenting alongside Whipple Consulting Engineers, saw firm opposition from We The People of Coeur d’Alene, a citizens group that pushes transparency in government. Roger Smith, representing We The People, pushed to plant a seed the Commission’s decision would resonate with the community for decades.

“It’s a once-in-a-lifetime, once-in-forever-type decision,” Smith said. “The test I would use is: Are you going to be proud of what is approved here in this process? Are you going to be proud to have your children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren say, ‘Boy, my old relative did some great things on this riverfront.’”

Most arguments against the development brought up old points from previous proposals. Perhaps the most impassioned plea in support of the development came from a lawyer.

“The applicant has been through the approval process on five prior occasions over several years and has yet to get an approval from the city of Coeur d’Alene for a project,” said Ed Lawson, the attorney representing the developers. “The goal here was to develop an application that met or exceeded all the applicable requirements, the annexation agreement, the City Code, including the shoreline district rules and regulations, the sub-division PUD provisions in the Code, and we believe we have accomplished all of that.

“At the end of the day,” he later continued, “I want to remind you: You’re tasked with making findings of fact. You can’t look at emotional appeals as constituting facts. You can’t look at ‘statements about concerns over traffic’ as constituting a fact. They have to be facts, and you have to make those findings as they relate to the standards of approval. And in doing so, you’re expected to put aside any biases or prejudices that you may have — for or against — my client or this project and make a judgement based on neutrality.”

Even after victory, however, the project still hit a setback. By the time the appeal process plays itself out, this year’s construction window will have closed, forcing developers to wait until next year to break ground.